Indicting a pregnant woman for manslaughter when someone else shoots her fetus is next-level...

[Lady Freedom Returns]

Indicting a pregnant woman for manslaughter when someone else shoots her fetus is next-level Handmaid's Tale B.S.

Just to reiterate, an unarmed, 5-month pregnant woman was shot in the stomach after getting into a fight, lost her baby, and she's the one was indicted for manslaughter.

That is seriously messed up, Alabama.

But what's even more messed up are the number of people I've seen defending this ruling. "She shouldn't have started a fight," people say. "When you're pregnant, the safety of your baby should be your first priority." "She was being irresponsible and putting her baby at risk."

Here's the problem with those arguments:

There are a million things that can go wrong in a pregnancy without a pregnant person ever doing a darn thing. And there are accidents that can affect a pregnancy without there being any malicious or negligent intent whatsoever. When we start to hold pregnant women legally responsible for the viability of their pregnancies, we start down a terrifying path.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[RandySF]

1. I read the shot was fired in self-defense.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. Pregnant women in the USA, BEWARE....

Anything happens to the fetus, you can be arrested. Even a car accident that was NOT your fault.

Alabama and elsewhere who have drawn up such draconian anti-abortion laws are dangerous for women. Be pregnant at your own risk it seems.

[Hoyt]

3. Yesterday, I believe I read that DA is not likely to prosecute. But it's gone too far.

[2naSalit]

4. Next level kind of fucked up...nt

[Crunchy Frog]

5. I've been shocked at the number of DUers defending this.

I can't believe what I read on this site sometimes.

[stopdiggin]

6. I didn't see a lot of support, maybe read the wrong string

I read several OP (and strings) on this subject, and I did not see the type of comments that you refer to: "She shouldn't have started a fight," people say. "When you're pregnant, the safety of your baby should be your first priority." "She was being irresponsible and putting her baby at risk." Perhaps I missed other postings, but I'd have to agree this does not sound like DU. I did see some posts that attempted to explain how such a seemingly backward outcome could come about in legal terms. In my own posts I made a point of stating that I did not support the charges, and probably more importantly, the legal premise backing them up. I find the final line of Cooley's tweet to be entirely on the mark:

"When we start to hold pregnant women legally responsible for the viability of their pregnancies, we start down a terrifying path."

Plain truth.

[Ilsa]

7. If person A starts a fight with person B, person B tries to shoot

Person A but kills person C, isn't person C still charged with something?

And is there evidence that person A appeared to be a deadly threat?

[stopdiggin]

8. probably meant isn't B charged?

And originally Jemison was charged ..
NYTimes 6/30/19: "Pleasant Grove officers initially arrested Ms. Jemison. But the grand jury declined to indict her, concluding that she had acted in self-defense. It then took the unusual step of indicting Ms. Jones, for 'initiating a fight knowing she was five months pregnant.' The police were surprised by the decision, according to the law enforcement officer, but agreed with its logic."

Looks like maybe a grand jury putting their own spin on what the police brought them. But, as the article goes on to examine .. largely supported by the community?

[malaise]

9. But but but she made him do it

Don't yah know that

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. I posted about this on FB

One of my friends suggested that pregnant victims of domestic violence could be seriously victimized by such tactics (i.e. "provoking" their abusive partners to violence against them)